Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyhow, the mystical multiple dimension
> interpretation is how I prefer to connect to the
> movie. At least at this stage. I am allergic to
> the materialistic and worldly in all of its forms.

Seems fine to me.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Is then the magic dimension-travel box also a fantasy of the "real" girl? I don't think so. And the demon trashman behind the diner who first(?) handled the box? And the man in the diner, who had the horrible vision? Also part of the real girl's fantasy?

I think the "real" girl committed suicide simply because her life in Hollywood was a failure. The suicide could hardly have been excused through such a delirious advanced fantasy. I don't think she fantasized the lesbian affair with the beautiful rich woman. She was a pretty but ordinary girl, who was sexually used, something which is common in Hollywood.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the "real" girl committed suicide simply
> because her life in Hollywood was a failure. The
> suicide could hardly have been excused through
> such a delirious advanced fantasy. I don't think
> she fantasized the lesbian affair with the
> beautiful rich woman.

Let's unwind this, if you don't mind.

Let's see: Avoosl says that the girl who came back for her belongings after they had "excahnged" apartments was her lover. You're sayng (and now I'm recalling that I came to the same conclusion) that she was used by a more successful and beautiful woman, sorta as a toy.

Could be both, huh?

She was living with the other girl, got seduced and lied to by the attractive woman, booted her regular lover, then got dumped. Her entire manufactured fanatasy world crashed--no jobs, no beautiful lover, no regular lover, ad all of the ego-crushing baggage that goes with this.

She sought revenge by hiring a killer, if I recall. This then leads to the "blue box".

> She was a pretty but
> ordinary girl, who was sexually used, something
> which is common in Hollywood.

I'll have to see it again, but I think one way to view the overall structure of the narrative is something like An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge, but with the frame in reverse order.

Seriously. Flip the gunshot at the beginning and so that the gunshot occurs at the end, followed by the drop to the pillow, and the entire fantasy as grimly compared to the mundane and tawdry reality, and the sequence ran in her head *just before* she pulled the trigger. It is what led up to the suicide.

That can account for the narrative sequence. As to the unaccountable foreshadowing of finding her own body somewhere in the narrative, I can't account for that part. I'd have to see it again, and even afterward, I *still* might not be able to account for it.

Let's see--the hairy thing behind the diner--I can recall working on that and coming up with something that satisfied me, and with the blue key, it seems like the key was the signal that the murder she had arranged of her lover had actually taken place: the hired killer had said something like "There's no going back on this once I start. When you see the blue key in your room, this means the jobs is done". This then turned into a blue box, in her fantasy. It triggered the realization that she had indeed had her killed, with the resultant guilt and emotional load that led to suicide. Pushed her over the edge.

All from memory. Likely mangled somewhat. I mean, I suppose I could look online, but I don't like being externally influenced in coming to conclusions, so I minimize it where possible. It is all but impossible to not have external influences, but I want to "own" the reasoning behind my conclusions. It's the only way I can understand them.

I hope Avoosl comments. I feel that he has a good grasp on what I recall to be the way the narrative plays out.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Let's unwind this, if you don't mind.
>
> Let's see: Avoosl says that the girl who came back
> for her belongings after they had "excahnged"
> apartments was her lover. You're sayng (and now
> I'm recalling that I came to the same conclusion)
> that she was used by a more successful and
> beautiful woman, sorta as a toy.
>
> Could be both, huh?
>
> She was living with the other girl, got seduced
> and lied to by the attractive woman, booted her
> regular lover, then got dumped. Her entire
> manufactured fanatasy world crashed--no jobs, no
> beautiful lover, no regular lover, ad all of the
> ego-crushing baggage that goes with this.
>
> She sought revenge by hiring a killer, if I
> recall.

Yes, it could be both. She dumped her old girlfriend, to be with the successful beautiful woman. And got used and dumped herself.

I agree so far.

But what did the bum killer do? He shot some longhaired guy in an office, and screwed it up with other accidental killings. I didn't understand what that was about.
The beautiful rich woman was supposed to have been killed by her chauffeurs at the beginning of the movie, but a car crash put a stop to that.

Are you sure there was a gunshot at the beginning? I don't remember hearing it.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But what did the bum killer do? He shot some
> longhaired guy in an office, and screwed it up
> with other accidental killings. I didn't
> understand what that was about.
>

It seems the longhaired guy had organized the killing of the beautiful woman, and was then double-crossed by the bum killer so he wouldn't have to pay him for the job.

Crime is not my favorite genre. I have not read any crime books! It is a world very foreign to my way of thinking. :)

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you sure there was a gunshot at the beginning?
> I don't remember hearing it.

I just re-watched the beginning. There is heavy breathing (but no picture). Either the girl has just shot herself and pulls her last breaths, or she is about to commit suicide.
After that the movie switches into the "idealized" reality, which is the girl's fantasy the way you see it (or spiritual drifting into the other parallel dimension, the way I see it).

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Are you sure there was a gunshot at the
> beginning?
> > I don't remember hearing it.
>
> I just re-watched the beginning. There is heavy
> breathing (but no picture). Either the girl has
> just shot herself and pulls her last breaths, or
> she is about to commit suicide.
> After that the movie switches into the "idealized"
> reality, which is the girl's fantasy the way you
> see it (or spiritual drifting into the other
> parallel dimension, the way I see it).

Let's see, the important part as I understood it is that the very beginning--the heavy breathing, although my memory plays tricks with me--was immediately followed, without any transition or explanation, to the happy young actress arriving in LA, where she'd live at her aunt's nifty garden apartment.

Or did it go to the darkhaired actress who was supposed to be killed, and who wandered down from the hills to the apartment. At what point did the two connect?

Then the end has a gunshot and a sort of drop to the pollow, or something like this.

The aunt, by the way, seemed like a sort of Hollywood idea of what a nice wealthy aunt would be.

O'm vaguely remembering the inept killer killing a guy in an office somewhere, but is there a sort of exchange where a guy who is a killer-type (not necessarily the inept guy) who tells the blonde "I'll leave a blue key on your coffee table. That's how you'll know it's done."

Again, I hope Avoosl helps out here, not in support of me (it could be in support of you, that would be fine by me) I just want to recall it better.

I'm recalling that the blue key/blue box thingie was pivotal.

I don't see anywhere I can watch it without paying, so it's unlikely I will for the present.

BTW, does the Cowboy have any function except as adding color and emphasizing that the director must choose a certain girl? I think that the failure blonde actress wanted to believe that she had lost a part due to unfair external influence.

I really like stuff like this--unreliable POV. It's tricky, though, because if the character is not defined well, it becomes a fig leaf for pure junk. To me, this is done well.

Oscar in The Tin Drum.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's see, the important part as I understood it
> is that the very beginning--the heavy breathing,
> although my memory plays tricks with me--was
> immediately followed, without any transition or
> explanation, to the happy young actress arriving
> in LA, where she'd live at her aunt's nifty garden
> apartment.
>
> Or did it go to the darkhaired actress who was
> supposed to be killed, and who wandered down from
> the hills to the apartment. At what point did the
> two connect?
>

First the darkhaired actress (not sure the movie says she is an actress, but she belongs to the wealthy and glamorous anyhow) is going down the hill, and hiding in the apartment. Then the happy actress arriving in LA, finding the other in her shower.

>
> O'm vaguely remembering the inept killer killing a
> guy in an office somewhere, but is there a sort of
> exchange where a guy who is a killer-type (not
> necessarily the inept guy) who tells the blonde
> "I'll leave a blue key on your coffee table.
> That's how you'll know it's done."

That is the same guy.

>
> I'm recalling that the blue key/blue box thingie
> was pivotal.
>

The weirdly shaped blue key and box was the beautiful woman's "key" into the "realistic" dimension. When she opened the box and looked, she was sucked into it.
The more ordinary blue key was the girl's "key" into the "idealized" dimension. Through murder and her subsequent suicide.

>
> BTW, does the Cowboy have any function except as
> adding color and emphasizing that the director
> must choose a certain girl? I think that the
> failure blonde actress wanted to believe that she
> had lost a part due to unfair external influence.

May be so.

>
> I really like stuff like this--unreliable POV.
> It's tricky, though, because if the character is
> not defined well, it becomes a fig leaf for pure
> junk. To me, this is done well.

Yes, done well, although I am not certain a logical explanation was necessarily intended for all of it. Like when the two of them find the dead girl; that can only be explained by a brush meeting of parallel dimensions.

> Again, I hope Avoosl helps out here, ...

We have our own Mulholland Drive here ... at the Eldritch Dark.

Yes, we sure do!

K, you have used the term "parallel universe", etc., and it connotes an actual physical parallel universe in the manner of sci-fi convention.

Is this what you actually mean--SF-like parallel universe? I am using a term more like "altered psychological state", technically, a "fugue state", experienced by the blonde failed actress.

If the former (SF parallel universe) you are of course free to choose this interpretation--art is, after all, interpreted by the consumer of art. That's valid.

But there'd be reasons why I could not personally consider a "parallel universe" interpretation as opposed to "fugue state".

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am flattered by your appeal to my supposed authority, guys, but I‘m basically as baffled as you are by this movie and certainly am no arbiter of anything in the world of art.

I personally think that basically all the “good” things that happen to the main character are a fantasy, while the bad stuff is all real:

Small-town girl wins dancing contest and uses the prize money to go to Hollywood. There, she has a relationship with another girl, which ends badly, and fails to become a star. She kills herself. The End. The audience is presented with her fantasies on the same level of reality as her real life (excellent reference to “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge”, Sawfish!).

I also think that the “hired killer”, “cowboy”, “pool guy infidelity” and “creep behind the Dumpsters” (and how very creepy he/she/it is!) subplots are vestigial remains of Lynch’s original intention to present Mulholland Dr. as a TV series, making the movie a kind of pilot.

Personally, I am quite comfortable with loose ends in art. In fact, I suspect that the greatest works always have one or two irregularities, like the superfluous foot in Bruegel’s Peasant Wedding.

Another example would be the use of of the words “perne” and “gyre” in Yeats’s “The Second Coming”. Why use such incomprehensible words in an otherwise perfectly lucid poem? (This is not a rhetorical question, BTW.)

Or consider Shelley‘s “Ozymandias”:

The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed

is hardly grammatical, and I fail to see how its ungrammaticality adds anything to the quality of the poem. But it’s there. And the poem is still great.

One last example (I realise I’m not answering anyone’s questions here): in Terry Gilliam’s divine movie Time Bandits, at one point a piece of Sellotape can be seen during a special-effects sequence. In Gilliam’s Criterion Collection director’s commentary, he points out that he explicitly did not want that to be digitally brushed out for the DVD release. That’s the mark of a real artist, IMHO.

As Paul Valéry put it: “A work is never completed, but merely abandoned”.

David Lynch’s movies are full of Sellotape.

Silencio!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 6 May 21 | 03:43PM by Avoosl Wuthoqquan.

Avoosl Wuthoqquan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am flattered by your appeal to my supposed
> authority, guys, but I‘m basically as baffled as
> you are by this movie and certainly am no arbiter
> of anything in the world of art.
>
> I personally think that basically all the
> “good” things that happen to the main
> character are a fantasy, while the bad stuff is
> all real:
>
> Small-town girl wins dancing contest and uses the
> prize money to go to Hollywood. There, she has a
> relationship with another girl, which ends badly,
> and fails to become a star. She kills herself. The
> End.

Yes, this is the story as I see it.

> The audience is presented with her fantasies
> on the same level of reality as her real life
> (excellent reference to “An Occurrence at Owl
> Creek Bridge”, Sawfish!).
>
> I also think that the “hired killer”,
> “cowboy”, “pool guy infidelity” and
> “creep behind the Dumpsters” (and how very
> creepy he/she/it is!) subplots are vestigial
> remains of Lynch’s original intention to present
> Mulholland Dr. as a TV series, making the movie a
> kind of pilot.

Yes, and it's impressive that he was able to salvage as much of it and meld it into a tantalizing film, one that we're having fun discussing almost 20 years later.

>
> Personally, I am quite comfortable with loose ends
> in art. In fact, I suspect that the greatest works
> always have one or two irregularities, like the
> superfluous foot in Bruegel’s Peasant Wedding.

Huh.

My interpretation is that while Bruegel was painting it, from real life models, one of them, Hans, was quite short, but primarily past his adolescent growth spurt. A nice lad, however.

One of his patrons came to his studio while he was working on that section, and the gentleman said, "Hans is a nice lad; too bad he's so short. He may yet grow several inches, but he won't grow another foot."

Bruegel, to twit the pompous git, later added the surplus foot to the painting.

>
> Another example would be the use of of the words
> “perne” and “gyre” in Yeats’s “The
> Second Coming”. Why use such incomprehensible
> words in an otherwise perfectly lucid poem? (This
> is not a rhetorical question, BTW.)

Great poem that encapsulates the moment we're living in, however!

"mere anarchy", indeed!

>
> Or consider Shelley‘s “Ozymandias”:
>
> The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed
>
> is hardly grammatical, and I fail to see how its
> ungrammaticality adds anything to the quality of
> the poem. But it’s there. And the poem is still
> great.

Oh, well, I see that as very much like Goldwyn's malapropisms, you know:

"Directors are the kind of people who bite the hand that lays the golden egg...".

or

"Include me out."

or

"A verbal contract is not worth the paper it's written on."

>
> One last example (I realise I’m not answering
> anyone’s questions here): in Terry Gilliam’s
> divine movie Time Bandits, at one point a piece of
> Sellotape can be seen during a special-effects
> sequence. In Gilliam’s Criterion Collection
> director’s commentary, he points out that he
> explicitly did not want that to be digitally
> brushed out for the DVD release. That’s the mark
> of a real artist, IMHO.

Of the Ed Wood level.

>
> As Paul Valéry put it: “A work is never
> completed, but merely abandoned”.
>
> David Lynch’s movies are full of Sellotape.
>
> Silencio!

:^)

Fun discussion!

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> K, you have used the term "parallel universe",
> etc., and it connotes an actual physical parallel
> universe in the manner of sci-fi convention.
>
> Is this what you actually mean--SF-like parallel
> universe? I am using a term more like "altered
> psychological state", technically, a "fugue
> state", experienced by the blonde failed actress.
>
> If the former (SF parallel universe) you are of
> course free to choose this interpretation--art is,
> after all, interpreted by the consumer of art.
> That's valid.
>

I don't like to use the term SF here, since that implies the movie concerns time- or dimension-travel based on human science. The blue box, though, may possibly be interpreted as a science fiction gadget. But I don't put much weight on that particular detail. From the story's perspective the box is more of a fantasy element, a magic box, or merely a symbolic narrative tool.

I like to interpret the movie from a spiritual perspective. Concerning reincarnation, or rather, spiritual drifting between parallel existences. And that may be closely related to "altered psychological state". Or extension of it. It depends on where one comes from philosophically/religiously, whether one is a mechanistic materialist or believes there is also a spiritual element to existence. I believe there is a spiritual element to existence/reality. (Perhaps in the future science and the spiritual will meet in a mutual explanation.)

I bet books have been written about this movie. I have not looked into that, nor have I seen other discussions about this movie.

I hope David Lynch, if he reads here, in my Mulholland twilight zone, will comment this. Although I am not sure that would make us any wiser.

I saw an interview with Lynch, when he had made Eraserhead and about the audience's reactions. And he said something like, there is no right or wrong interpretation, since there was no definite rational intention behind it, it was my inner needs of expression that came out; it is what it is.

Although more structured, I think Mulholland Drive may work along similar lines too. An abstract piece of art, a symbolic expression, surrealistic view of life. It may work as a dream too, therefore lacking real structure, plucking essences and recombining them. It tells of the thin line between between happiness and misery, life's breathing between light and darkness, that interchanging which we cannot escape.

It should be seen with an open flexible, lively mind, not an angular rational mind.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > K, you have used the term "parallel universe",
> > etc., and it connotes an actual physical
> parallel
> > universe in the manner of sci-fi convention.
> >
> > Is this what you actually mean--SF-like
> parallel
> > universe? I am using a term more like "altered
> > psychological state", technically, a "fugue
> > state", experienced by the blonde failed
> actress.
> >
> > If the former (SF parallel universe) you are of
> > course free to choose this interpretation--art
> is,
> > after all, interpreted by the consumer of art.
> > That's valid.
> >
>
> I don't like to use the term SF here, since that
> implies the movie concerns time- or
> dimension-travel based on human science. The blue
> box, though, may possibly be interpreted as a
> science fiction gadget. But I don't put much
> weight on that particular detail. From the story's
> perspective the box is more of a fantasy element,
> a magic box, or merely a symbolic narrative tool.

Agreed.

I think the blue box/key symbolizes:

"And everything changes starting now, and there's no going back...".

>
>
> I like to interpret the movie from a spiritual
> perspective. Concerning reincarnation, or rather,
> spiritual drifting between parallel existences.
> And that may be closely related to "altered
> psychological state". Or extension of it. It
> depends on where one comes from
> philosophically/religiously, whether one is a
> mechanistic materialist or believes there is also
> a spiritual element to existence. I believe there
> is a spiritual element to existence/reality.
> (Perhaps in the future science and the spiritual
> will meet in a mutual explanation.)
>
> I bet books have been written about this movie. I
> have not looked into that, nor have I seen other
> discussions about this movie.

Tons and tons written about this film, K. I succumbed to the temptation to see other interpretations and was staggered.

>
> I hope David Lynch, if he reads here, in my
> Mulholland twilight zone, will comment this.
> Although I am not sure that would make us any
> wiser.

Hah!

Again, if I had a wish, I wish he'd do the Manson/Tate murders.

The most significant attribute about the incident, if told as a narrative, is the setting at 10050 Ceilo Drive. That forum of kooks who make a hobby of the murder has all kinds of photos of the house/lot, and it's easy to study Google maps and old property records back to the first owner.

Now, no ghost stuff here. The actual impact is that the house was within shouting distance of Sunset Blvd, yet isolated on a hillside on such a way that it was cut off from any easy view or ability to monitor it.

This is just as mind-bending as the midnight corral in Mulholland Drive. How can there be such a thing as an isolated corral and the Capitol Records Building within a mile of each other, or less?

I do residential real estate as a sideline, and have for years. I like individual pieces of real estate in the same way that some posters here like certain editions of books. So looking at photos taken from the old (was torn down in 1998 and re-developed into what can only be described "Sodomite Palace"), the candid photos from the front of the house gave a sense of floating over the Sunset/Santa Monica corridor above Beverly Hills.

It was like a piece of personal paradise in the sky, isolated, private. The house was not sumptuous by any means--it was a simple ranch-style, maybe 2500 sq ft., but done by an architect so it was at least not a cookie-cutter. It was on a 3.5 acre hillside lot at the end of what had probably been its private 200 yard driveway when developed, but became an arm of the actual Ceilo Drive. In the middle of the sloping lot was a sort of notch or flat spot cut right into the middle of the slope, all by itself, facing out midway between the summit (probably nothing up above the when built) and the valley floor at Sunset.

Really unique real estate.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~